"Both cases raise serious issues about how the courts should handle situations where information shared with the court and used to agree a divorce settlement is later found to be false or incomplete," said Ros Bever, a specialist divorce lawyer at law firm Irwin Mitchell.

"We believe the position that both women find themselves in is unfair and that is why we are taking their cases to the Supreme Court.

"To both women these cases are about a matter of principle and justice."

Ms Sharland had accepted more than £10 million in cash and properties from her ex-husband Charles. Ms Gohil had accepted £270,000 plus a car from her husband Bhadresh.

The Supreme Court hearing is due to end on Wednesday and Justices are expected to deliver a ruling later in the year.

Both women were at the Supreme Court hearing today to hear lawyers begin outlining legal argument.

Justices have been told that both women had reached agreement with their ex-husbands after beginning litigation. Both subsequently thought that they had been misled.

Justices heard that Ms Sharland claimed that her ex-husband misled her over the value of a business.

Lawyers said she had thought the business was valued at between £31 million and £47 million but reports in the financial press put the value at £1 billion.

Ms Gohil's husband had been convicted of money laundering following their divorce, justices heard.

Justices were asked to consider whether the two women's rights to "fair trials" had been undermined.